<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2004 (11) TMI 247 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53713</link>
    <description>Capital goods credit under Rule 57Q was admissible where an injection moulding machine was used to make intermediate goods cleared without duty to another unit of the same assessee, because the final shaving systems were dutiable. Rule 57C did not bar credit when the exempt clearance was only of intermediate goods and not the final products. The declaration filed under Rule 57T also negatived any allegation of suppression for limitation purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:32:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92190" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 247 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53713</link>
      <description>Capital goods credit under Rule 57Q was admissible where an injection moulding machine was used to make intermediate goods cleared without duty to another unit of the same assessee, because the final shaving systems were dutiable. Rule 57C did not bar credit when the exempt clearance was only of intermediate goods and not the final products. The declaration filed under Rule 57T also negatived any allegation of suppression for limitation purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53713</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>